AHNIWATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 1417 of 2023
[2024] HKCFI 1044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1417 of 2023
BETWEEN | ||
| Ahniwati | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office | Putative Respondent | |
| and | ||
| Director of Immigration | Putative | |
| Interested Party | ||
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
consideration of documents only; or consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by overstaying. She lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). She appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision, her appeal was dismissed by the Board.
2. The applicant filed Form 86 on 15 August 2023 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision.
3. In an affirmation filed on 4 March 2024, the applicant said she wants to withdraw her application because she wants to return to her country as she had solved her problems in her country and it is safe for her to return.
4. Apart from this application, there is nothing outstanding in this case.
5. In accordance with the Court of Appeal in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi[2022] HKCA 471 at §19:
“(1) The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action. The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large.”
6. The application is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 23rd day of April 2024
| (M.O. WONG)(Ms) for Registrar, High Court |
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
| Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must: | ||||
| a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)). | Sent to the Applicant on 23/4/2024 Ahniwati Applicant’s ref. no: Nil | Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 23/4/2024 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 20892 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL/625/22 Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1